On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:29:56 +0000 Peter Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 16 Dec 2008, at 23:30, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > I'm interested in completely mapping my city bus network, it would > > be great if there was some online routing application that I could > > go to that could plan my routes. Of course I'd have to provide it > > with sufficient survey information to do this, which would be part > > of mapping it obviously. > > > > Routing applications based on OSM data also have the opportunity to > > do inter-network routing. You could step onto a bus in one city, > > take a rail to another one, inter-city bus to yet another city, > > then a bus and walk on a footway to your destination. All based on > > OSM data. > > > > I am very interested in such an application and have taken some time > to see what is happening around the world. > It's the main application I had in mind when I got into online mapping a few years back. http://busmonster.com was particularly inspirational for me. > > Can I suggest that one takes a layering approach to this (as the > professional transport sector does) and some layers belong in OSM > and some not... > Yes, timetabling probably doesn't belong. > Firstly the bus stops (or more generally 'stop 'points) which is > where one physically accesses the transport system which should be > point features within OSM. > Could you elaborate on this? Reuse existing nodes on ways? Point features as opposed to what? Are you stressing "within OSM"? > Secondly the routes the vehicles take which traveling on the network > to get from stop point to stop point. In most cases this is obvious, > but in a limited number of cases one will need to include route > points that are not stop points. These might use the route relation > and detail every way that is involved for every route, but this is > more detail than a route planner needs that can work out most stop to > stop routing without guidance. I have been (mostly) following the guidelines on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route, where we use a relation, which principally includes ways and the stops (which sit adjacent as nodes as I've done them), as members. Then your problem goes away. (It's admittedly a little sad to have to break up ways for routing. I'm also conscious that other mappers further dissecting them will probably break the relation, but I think that might be an issue for the API to address :~) ) > Including detailed routing in OSM > means that it has to be updated every time the schedules change. > The schedules? or the route? Whichever, remember there are currently mappers embedding business phone numbers as shop metadata. > All of the rest of the data can then be in Google Transit Feed > Specification (an open source data standard controlled by Google) > and can feed GraphServer or equivalent for route planning. GT is not > perfect and can't represent complex rail journeys but it is open > source and there is data available already in it that can be used > and it is a good starting point: > http://code.google.com/p/googletransitdatafeed/wiki/PublicFeeds > Ewww, CSV serialisations requiring their own purpose-built validator … Like you say, we can build from it. Let's look through the fields/elements, but make something proper and scalable that leverages XML as it should. > I am not sure how one would explicitly refer to the schedules file > from OSM. Possibly all the stop points in a area would be part of a > 'network' relation that that network relation would refer to the > external schedules file using a 'schedules' URL. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network > Works for me. > > Would it be useful to create a list for discussion of public > transport applications within OSM. Could I suggest a title of > 'talk-transit' or should this conversation be part of the > 'talk-routing' list? Including PT routing in the talk-routing list > might make some sense because there is always a walking element to > the routing and people interested in routing may also be interested > in PT routing. I certainly think this conversation needs a 'home' > that is off the main talk list which is too busy already. > +1, preferably for a separate list. I'm not sure how welcome transit discussion would be on the routing list. (I'm curently subscribed to it only on the off-chance some transit material will surface.) I have been under the impression there isn't too much interest for this within OSM, judging by the paucity of activity on the lists and content on the wiki. I think it's another potential killer app for OSM. Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
